Over 50 - 40% strength training per WD! Comments?

[DRD0]

Considering it was Women's Day, Dr Cooper was probably not allowed to expand like he could of on what he thinks is needed. They are not an exercise magazine, and just did a "light" interview. It is nice to see him tell people to weight train.

I am in the camp of build the base when you are young and keep plugging away at it as you age.

[Judith L]

The only thing I can derive from Dr. Cooper's remarks is that strength training is very important as we age. That's all.

To maintain or increase bone mass it's been determined (the Tufts study) that one must lift heavy (Dr. Miriam Nielson recommends 2 sets of 8 reps) at least twice a week (Nielson recommends three times). Given the fact that a 48 hour recovery period is generally recommended per muscle group and that as one ages one needs longer recovery intervals between strength workouts, it would seem to me that as one ages one probably arrives at lifting heavy only twice a week.

On the other hand, for cardiovascular health it's now recommended for everyone to exercise aerobically at least 30 minutes (cumulatively) every day, not just three days a week.

So I don't really understand percentages here, whether they refer to time or effort.. Furthermore, one's strength sessions could be minimal or prolonged. To whom is Dr. Cooper speaking? Or to whom would such percentages apply?

[hch]

[Note: the last section of this thread is now revised and expanded.]

Originally Posted by DRD0

Considering it was Women's Day,

I'm sure that everyone will be surprised to hear that I'm not familiar with that magazine.

Originally Posted by DRD0

Dr Cooper was probably not allowed to expand like he could of on what he thinks is needed. They are not an exercise magazine, and just did a "light" interview.

Originally Posted by Judith L

So I don't really understand percentages here, whether they refer to time or effort.. Furthermore, one's strength sessions could be minimal or prolonged. To whom is Dr. Cooper speaking? Or to whom would such percentages apply?

Your posts reminded me to look elsewhere for details on what "percent" might mean here.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007...ngth-training/

This article from the Cox News Service (on the Boulder [Colorado] Daily Camera website) has those same "percent" recommendations in its sidebar, but still with no specific details. The sidebar does mention that Dr. Cooper got to strength training late in life, when he found that had endurance but lacked strength (surprise).

The main article is about paying more attention to neglected strength training (and mentions CrossFit, which has been mentioned on VF).

http://cbass.com/CooperBook.htm

This 2000 review of his Regaining the Power of Youth At Any Age mentions the same percentages and gives us a pretty good clue here:

Dr. Cooper gives some interesting specifics on his own training, which illustrate how the guidelines actually work. At the present time, Cooper figures that he devotes 70 percent to aerobics and 30 percent to strength training, showing that his guidelines are flexible based on personal needs. Dr. Cooper’s ratio is not as one-sided as this makes it appear, however. That’s because he includes walking with his wife in the evening three or four times a week as part of his aerobics. It’s important to understand that his percentages are calculated on the time spent working out; intensity is not taken into account.

Unless his use of "percent" has changed over time or something, here's strong evidence for the "time" reading.

In any case, the review also mentions other things to keep in mind:

- Dr. Cooper gives 50% cardio as a minimum as a "good rule of thumb."
- Even so, he recommends "at least the minimum percentage of strength work" to avoid a "dramatic loss in strength and muscle mass."
- Those recommendations are averages and will depend on your goals.

In other words, his recommendations (at least his 2000-era ones) are not so inflexible as some people may read them, especially in condensed "article" form. Especially if you're like me, you may have noticed these added bits are "friendlier" to younger people who do more than "20% strength training." (If anyone thought otherwise: I had no intention of changing my cardio-strength ratio to 80:20 just because he said so. )

I also wonder how he trains now.

[Pratima]

Why do you think he picks age 40 as a milestone? Seems kind of arbitrary. Since it is a women's magazine, I'd think he'd choose a milestone based on a physical change such as menopause. I'm 34, and keep reading the posts thinking, "Why age 40? What's going to happen to me in 6 years?"

[hch]

Originally Posted by Pratima

Why do you think he picks age 40 as a milestone? Seems kind of arbitrary. Since it is a women's magazine, I'd think he'd choose a milestone based on a physical change such as menopause. I'm 34, and keep reading the posts thinking, "Why age 40? What's going to happen to me in 6 years?"

It's a Nice Round Number, I guess. (Nice Round Numbers are popular: it's probably the same reason that a BMI of 25 is so magical.) His recommendations seem to apply the same to men and women alike, too.

Your post also reminds me of something else that popped into my head as I wrote my previous posts. Just as there might be some people with calculators at the ready, there might be some people around those cusps (ages 40, 50, 60) who might pay a lot of attention to modulating their workout times to fit those percentages.

In any case, if there's continuity between his book and the recommendations, then there should be some wiggle room, since the numbers are averages and will depend on goals anyway. But since those numbers--without any mention of variation--have appeared in a news article and a major magazine, I think it likely that some readers have whipped out their calculators to figure out the "perfect" workout.

I'll look for the book mentioned in my last post to see if there's more explanation there.

[hch]

I now have a copy of the book Regaining the Power of Youth At Any Age.

The same numbers appear in a table in Chapter 2 ("Strike, Strenghten, and Stretch: The Basic Targeting Trilogy"). "These percentages should be understood in terms of time spent working out during a given week." (I wonder why other, more recent, sources didn't mention time explicitly.)

His numbers come from his own experience and "available scientific literature" (I wonder if the literature in the near-decade since then would give a different idea). These recommendations are "general," though, and he explicitly allows different percentages, like "if you are involved in a competitive sport that rquires you to do more strength than what is indicated for your age-group." He does say, "Neither should be neglected," and gives, as minimums, 50% cardio and the age-based percentage for strength work. (In other words, I've confirmed what I quoted from that review.)

Before I return it, are there other questions?

P.S. Oh, and I flipped through the book. There's a sidebar in Chapter 8: "Should an Older Woman Pump Iron?" "The answer to this question may be yes...." I notice the "may," heh. The study group that lifted heavier got more strength than the lighter group or the control group--surprise!

[Bebop]

Well, since health recs. and studies are always changing, I try to stick with common sesne and maintain a balance of both.

I try for two or three strength training sessions - three cardios, maybe a bonus run with my dog, and lots of yoga for sanity.

I agree with Abbe that the percentages are confusing. And, I'm over 40 sliding into 50 and I have actually increased my cardio not because of any studies, but because I like cardio, I'm in the best shape I've ever been in, so I can now actually do longer and intense cardio and I love doing Cardio Coach workouts with my dog.

When I was out of shape, I couldn't even take a long walk, let alone run with an energetic dog. It feels good. My weight is down to it's lowest also. I have to contribute that to the extra cardio because I haven't changed my eating too much.

I have increased my weights due to my age. I used to just concentrate on endurance and toning but now I want strength and muscle mass. and bone density.

[Castella]

For what it's worth, around the age of 39 I decreased cardio and increased strength. My reasons were concerns about bone density and supporting dodgy joints and being bored with indoor cardio (once my days of biking and running were over due to joint issues I had to find something else).

I have more muscle now, but less cardiovascular endurance. I feel like I gain weight faster (that lost metabolism thing). Part of it may be aging and perimenopause, but doing a lot of cardio really seemed to juice up my metabolism. Also, my blood pressure was lower when I did a lot of cardio. Jury's still out on the cholesterol.

I do appreciate the benefits of doing more strength training: being able to lift things, improved posture, and looking reasonably muscular.

[FitBoop]

One more thought came to mind. I've trained a number of older adults, and if people have not been strength-training and begin to train later in life, they have to start out with very light weights. It takes an older person time to learn form and develop the coordination for the exercises, before they can attempt to use the amount of weight that will have significant effects on the muscles and bones. They also may never be able to reach the amount of weight that they could have reached at that age, had they been strength-training throughout their lives.

[DRD0]

Cool Abbe. I have a sister who does not "get" why I have done weight lifting for the last 26 years, perhaps when she looks at us now(she is heavy with a beer gut), she might understand. Another sister was an avid runner and now cannot run, although she is active and hikes in the mountains, but complains about her joints. I told her she should weight train to help that....she said, I know, I know, I should.....